DENTAL2U, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company; and Paul Granzier, Plaintiffs, v. LORIN C. BARKER, an individual; KENNETH W. BIRRELL, an individual; and KIRTON McCONKIE, P.C., a Utah professional corporation, Defendants Case No. 2:15-cv-00732-TC-DBP United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division Filed December 21, 2016 Pead, Dustin B., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION *1 This matter was referred to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 44.) The case involves allegations of legal malpractice and associated breach of fiduciary duties. (See ECF No. 19.) Defendants Lorin C. Barker, Kenneth W. Birrell and Kirton McConkie, P.C., (“Defendants”) filed a Short Form discovery motion on December 6, 2016, seeking to compel certain tax returns, communications, and agreements. (ECF Nos. 43.) Plaintiffs Dental2U, LLC, and Paul Granzier (“Plaintiffs”), filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 45.) In response to the court’s order, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 52.) The court did not hear oral argument. I. Dispute Defendants’ motion seeks production of certain of Plaintiffs’ state and federal tax returns during the 2009–2015 timeframe. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants also seek to compel production of various communications with certain attorneys for which Plaintiff waived the attorney-client privilege. (Id.) Finally, Defendants’ request an order compelling certain of Plaintiffs’ “agreements and communications with dental service providers in various states.” (Id.) The basis for the motion is straightforward: Defendants requested this information and it was simply not produced. Defendants suggest Plaintiffs did not diligently search for some of the information. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that they were in the process of producing the information when Defendants filed their motion to compel. (ECF No. 45) Plaintiffs claim that tax returns were provided on December 5, 2016, the day before this motion was filed. Plaintiffs also state that “[o]n December 8th, Plaintiffs identified additional responsive documents, which Plaintiffs are producing.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants failed to properly meet and confer prior to filing their motion, and sanctions should be awarded for that failure. Plaintiffs do not raise any objection to producing the information Defendants requested. II. Analysis a. Defendants adequately met and conferred As indicated, Plaintiffs’ only contention here is that Defendants did not adequately meet and confer before filing this motion. It is within the court’s discretion to deny a motion to compel for failure to comply with the meet-and-confer requirements set forth in Rule 37 and corresponding local rules. See Schulte v. Potter, 218 F. App’x 703, 709 (10th Cir. 2007). Good faith and reasonableness are the touchstones of the court’s analysis here. Rule 37 requires certification that the moving party has “in good faith conferred” with the opposing party in an effort to obtain discovery without court intervention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Likewise, the District of Utah’s Rule 37-1 requires counsel to “make reasonable efforts without court assistance to resolve a dispute” regarding discovery. D.U. Civ. R. 37-1(a). The rule further requires a written communication and in-person or telephone conference(s) to resolve the dispute. Id. “When the dispute involves objections to requested discovery, parties do not satisfy the conference requirements simply by requesting or demanding compliance with the requests for discovery.” Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. v. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 456, 459 (D. Kan. 1999). Here, the court finds that Defendants satisfied the requirement to meet and confer. *2 Defendants sent a letter on August 26, 2016, detailing alleged deficiencies with Plaintiffs discovery responses. (ECF No. 43, Ex. H.) From September through November 2016, counsel engaged in several email communications in an attempt to sort through these discovery issues. (Id.) Also, on September 21, 2016, and December 2, 2016, the parties discussed discovery issues during telephone conferences. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants filed the instant motion on December 6, 2016. Defendants’ attempts certainly satisfy the letter of Rule 37-1 because they include both the written communications and teleconferences required by rule. Next, Plaintiffs argue here that Defendants “failed to give time for Plaintiffs to cooperate, and ignored Plaintiffs’ notice (and actual productions) that it had found responsive documents.” (ECF No. 45.) The court is not persuaded by these arguments. First, as to the alleged failure to allow sufficient time, the court notes that the parties had been discussing these issues for months when the motion was filed. Likewise, Plaintiffs assert no objection to producing the documents. Instead, as Defendants suggest, the delay appears occasioned more by Plaintiffs less-than-superb efforts to locate responsive documents, rather than a lack of opportunity to meet and confer. Defendants did not simply file a motion to compel immediately after the initial attempt to resolve this discovery dispute. Instead, Defendants filed their motion after months of failed attempts to obtain discovery. While the court encourages counsel to be patient with one another, there comes a time when court intervention is appropriate. After three months of discussion, Defendants were justified in filing a motion to compel. Second, Plaintiffs only claim to have produced tax returns on the day prior to Defendants filing the present motion. This certainly does not resolve the present motion, which seeks to compel documents in addition to tax returns. Moreover, Defendants’ reply indicates that certain tax returns are still outstanding notwithstanding the December 5 production. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Defendants satisfied the meet-and-confer requirements. Based on this finding, and the lack of substantive objection to the discovery requests at issue, the court will grant Defendants’ motion. III. Ruling Based on the foregoing, the court hereby, GRANTS Defendants’ Short Form Discovery Motion (ECF No. 43.); and ORDERS as follows: Within ten days of this Order, Plaintiffs are ordered to produce the following documents to Defendants: a. Dental2U, LLC’s state tax returns for the years 2011 and 2012; b. Dental2U, LLC’s Ohio state tax return for the year 2014; c. Paul Granzier’s Ohio state tax return for the year 2009; d. All state tax returns filed by Paul Granzier in any state besides Ohio from 2009 to 2015. If Mr. Granzier has not filed tax returns in any other state, he shall so state by amending and/or supplementing his written response to Defendants’ Request for Production No. 14; e. All of Plaintiffs’ communications with attorneys Timothy Whitford, Esq., Errol King, Esq., and Dave Kemmerly, Esq., or any of their respective law firms, representatives, agents, assistants or colleagues (collectively, the “Attorneys”), that refer or relate to the provision of dental services, insurance licensing, or any investigation, enforcement process, administrative proceeding, complaint or lawsuit concerning the provision of dental services or insurance licensing. Plaintiffs’ production shall include, without limitation, all responsive emails and attachments that Plaintiffs sent to the foregoing Attorneys. If Plaintiffs are not in possession, custody, or control of any further responsive written communications with the foregoing Attorneys, Plaintiffs shall so state by amending and/or supplementing their written responses to Defendants’ Request for Production Nos. 21 and 22, and shall describe therein the search Plaintiffs conducted for responsive communications, including whether Plaintiffs searched their “sent items” email folders; and *3 f. All documents that refer or relate to any agreements between either Plaintiff and any dentist, dentist group, or dentist organization, in the states of Louisiana, Arizona, Ohio, and Iowa from 2009 to the present, including all such agreements, drafts of agreements, communications about the negotiations leading up to such agreements, and any and all documents concerning the payment of any monies to or from either Plaintiff and the party to the agreements, including without limitation, all responsive agreements and communications with the dental service provider referenced in KM002016-17, 2247-48, and 2487-90. If Plaintiffs’ do not provide any of the above information, they must file a certification with the court stating the information is not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control, and describing the efforts made to locate the information. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 20th day of December 2016.